Vibroverse

Well, yes, a=a might be an imagination ultimately, consciousness ultimately, if we think of existence as consciousness, but what we need to accept and deal with, I guess, is it is a deeeeeeeeeeeeep level imagination.

Congratulations man, and, as a joke, I wanted to say that we are in an eternal cult called existence and there is nooooo way out.

I'm telling the truth for those who have a very short attention span:

You can, and you can even experience the high of a psychedelic that will be created in 2100s, because you are everything, and weed, like everything else, is imagination, is mind. However, what I said is true on the absolute level being, and here we are on the practical, the relative, level of being, so it might be easier for you to get into that state by smoking "real" weed. It is because the brain is blah blah blah, you know, at least on the level, in that sense, that is relevant to you, how you create the idea of brain and chemicals, dada. And, yeah, meditation, or practices like that, can, perhaps, to some extect, help you get into that state that the idea of smoking weed represents to you. However, if "physical" weed is available to you, why not just follow the "path of least resistance", and smoke it, you know. The infinite is trying to "guide" you, so to speak, to what is most believable and "relevant", in that sense, to you through your intuitive modality in the now.

Makes sense.

Yeah, I probably cannot, and reading, or listening, etc, probably is the path of least resistance for communication in the relative domain of being. Consciousness, in the mode of space and time, creates a path of least resistance, in a sense, like that. However, is it the content that matters or the form, and mode of conceptualizating, that do? And philosophy can be pretty helpful, I agree with that, no arguments about that, but my problem is about the nature of thoughts themselves, about what thoughts even are. I mean, yeah, if you wanna eat corn you first need it to grow, it manifests for you through a certain path, and, in the relative domain, at least, we experience such a thing as process and time, and a certain mode of experience. I need to learn from an expert, for instance, if I wanna learn how to code, etc. There are certain patterns of learning and grasping things in a way that makes sense to us. But what I'm questioning actually is that. If we are the infinite consciousness, then why do we feel like we need to follow certain steps? I mean, it probably is because we believe that we cannot access it, or become it, directly, yes. But the thing is, why do we buy into that mode of being and believe that it is the only way that really works, if we truly understand that we are the infinite consciousness? I don't say that it doesn't make sense on the relative domain of being, but why do we think of it as the only possible, and practical, way that there really is? True, I cannot read your mind yet, but does that mean that I, then, will never be able to read your mind? Because if you and I are one, and in reality there only is one mind, then isn't it possible, really, that we might be just limiting ourselves with the limiting beliefs? I mean, if at the ultimate, or absolute, level all is one, all is self, then can't all those infinite possibilities of being already be yourself, and that we, maybe, are just limited by our own beliefs that are imposed upon us by "society"? I mean, can't we just be, unconsciously, overwhelmed by the, something like, collective unconscious about our beliefs that just seem to be so obvious for us to believe? And, of course, for now, at least, it must be the most logical thing to do to follow the path of least resistance. And maybe, yeah, the mode of interactivity, for now, at least, might be the mode of being that is the most satisfactory for us given where we are as the state of being that we, in a sense, currently are. I don't know why reality is structured in that way, though.

I've studied Merleau-Ponty and Whitehead to some extent through other teachers, but not read any of their books yet.

I've studied Merleau-Ponty and Whitehead to some extent through other teachers, but not read any of their books yet. I've found them to be pretty interesting figures, so I can study them in more depth, mhm.

But the thing is, what are those contents that the western philosophy bring to us? I mean, is that content not an aspect of you that you reveal to yourself? Is the content coming from outside or are you actually realizing that which is inside as that which is being? If we think of reality as one infinite consciousness, then isn't the concept actually one of the forms, or formalities, that which is empty appears to be? Is the content real, or is it itself, in a sense, another category of mind? I mean, is the self self, or is it the way that it becomes self, like if I tell you something, including a model of reality, isn't it you appearing to yourself as me, as that which is you but hidden to you?

To me, it feels like becoming a representation of a certain state of being without realizing the state of being that it represents, because what else is there in existence other than existence to create anything from? Thought seems to have a certain pattern of being in the process of it becoming. And, okay, I'm not against any game anyone is playing, but believing that your game is "the" game is the problem. Because you are comparing the realness of your game to another aspect of your game. The question then is, though, is the substance of your game you? I mean, is the substance from which your "becoming" is made you? I mean, what is the "other" from which you are acquiring that which has not been you? If I tell you that which is not, yet, you, then are you appropriating it to what makes sense to you?

And most philosophers did not understand the importance of state of being. I mean, they did not understand that thought is reflective of the state of being, and thought, in that sense, is the appearance of state of being. I mean, some philosophers, as I understand, understood this situation, at least to an extent, like Hegel, Plotinus, Plato, and Spinoza, and the Stoics, that they understood the importance of being in the state of peace, love and tranquility. They seem to, sorta kinda, understand that, but I don't see that any of them worked on that extensively. They become so involved in the process of thinking, and model building, that they were not aware of the background of the state of being that they did experience. That was like a given for them, that they became that mode of being in their own modality, but what was the ground on which they became them? Now, I know, I might, in a sense, be overgeneralizing, but what is it in them that made them "them" that they were? I'm seeing that Heidegger was pretty aware of the importance of understanding being for the sake of being, but what is it that is being that is the experience of being? What is the ground of being if being is being in its own very beingness that made him possible for him? And, at that point, you may say "but then that is 'overmystifying' being", and that what I said about them modelling experience, and being another part of that modelling of the experience, can also be applied to what I'm saying here, and that can be, in a sense, an inevitable loop of "being", when it is the experience of consciousness. But isn't philosophy, then, the experience of reaching towards yourself to discover and build yourself with the "tools" that you have, that are concepts, and concepts of concepts, "possibly" ad infinitum, that makes you you, that makes you the experience of transformation that, then, explains itself? That's one of my questions about being, or of being, the process of "gathering information". What even is information if being is being, and if being is, also, the mode of being that it is? What makes a thing a thing, or a mode of being a thing, if it also is the mode of being itself?

What I see in western philosophy is the constant attempt of creating forms in mind based on the perceived reality, and then formalize it as being the only way that it is. Looking at the experience, and moving to a model building from the experience, without understanding that the model that they build is but another part of the experience. I think postmodern philosophers, maybe even starting with Heidegger, understood this problem, but there still is an addiction to the perceived experience as being the "isness" of existence. And, I think, that's where they are trying to distinguish themselves from mysticism and spirituality, but with that experience they simply limit being to their current experience of being. But they don't, genuinely, question the experience of being by understanding the truly perceptual experience of being, the correlation of being with itself as the perceiver of being. That, then, creates never ending loops in the perception, and a lack of willingness to understand the very perception of perception, the very experience of being that is, itself, the being.

She is both good at explaining things, and also a beautiful woman, so it's lovely to watch her, in that sense, also.

You will get the geist of it.

There probably is no such thing as intelligence, there is only the experience of jumping from parallel reality to parallel reality. Then intelligence probably, simply, is you jumping to a parallel reality timeline structure, changing the past, that represents what you want. People and objects around me are not more real than an imaginary being, like Dobby, and those realms of being. Reality, probably, possibly, hmm, is the illusion of continuity that consciousness is morphing into. A collapse of focus that "you" become. And I'm, in a sense, "stuck" in the idea of similar, very very similar, frames following each other to create the illusion of continuity and world etc. It is like vibration collapsing into a thought, a memory, etc, and you "go" from there.

It is interesting that there is such a thing as emotion, or state of being, or whatever you call it, at all. Why do we experience something as "feeling" at all? Why do we "feel" at all?

Philosophers, you've always tried to understand reality, but the point is to change it, says Marx' spirit, haunting all of us ?

I think therefore I am ?

A Hegelian model of science can "save" us.

Maybe I'm really just fooling myself saying that "I probably have no choice but suffering", "my life cannot flow peacefully and nicely the way I want" etc. Just making myself believe, perhaps, that life is supposed to be hardship and pain.

"I need to be the doer", "I need to motivate myself", etc etc etc etc. All those modalities of thinking and "being" probably are just me frickin bsing. And it's you, and it's you, and it's you, one of the losers only, hopefully. One of those who messed up their lives and now seeking for alignment, or some shit like that, hopefully.

I really feel like I don't need to know what to do, because Inner Being knows what to do. I feel like I need to care about my vibration only and tune to the mind and mode of my frickin Inner Being. "Oh I shouldn't have done that", "oh, I'm fucked up", "oh I'm a bad one", "oh dada". All of that probably is just me being an idiot, and letting myself be sucked in by a black hole.

Able to become forms? As space and time and objects? If I'm talking to a friend, and imagine that I'm talking to Dobby from Harry Potter, are they both as real as each other? If I imagine being a cat, is it as real as me imagining that I'm a human? If I imagine I'm a Martian, is it as real as me imagining that I'm an earthling? Is all, really, imaginary? I mean, densities and forms and all the detailednesses of the world? Are the place that I'm in and people around me, and Dobby also, ahaha, all imaginary? Time and space and history, all imaginary? That's fucking crazy, but maybe that's how the moment point, in a sense, is found, hmm. Biology and physics and chemistry, and even, the craziest of all, the frickin laws of logic. That really is the craziest shit. That idea is the craziest. How can the frickin laws of logic be also imaginary, man? That's the craziest idea, that's just frickin impossible, man. But I think the laws of logic might be God itself, that, like, it is the barrier of being. But it's still weird, man. It still, kinda, is so weird, man. Laws of logic, in that sense, seems to be the substance of reality, or like the very, in a sense, "light" of reality. How can "it" be illusory? It is like the "nonphysical" ground "on" which everything is built. It is like the being of being, ad infinitum. How can it be illusory? It is like if it is illusory, then it is illusory, then existence is that itself, feeding unto itself by being the modality of that which is being. That's like the craziest idea ever in existence, or of existence, that being is being, and, "also", in the "process" of being, and that's the weird point, I guess, of intuition, but I, in a sense, don't know wtf it really is, if you know what I mean. To me, it feels like, no philosopher truly understood the importance, and the true meaning, of intuition, even if some of them talked about it. They also tried to rationalize intuition, they claimed that rationality is greater than intuition, that intuition, at best, is a subset of reason. But, I think, they were all utterly wrong, even if they said that intuition is important, they still made it something that is based on nonintuitive understandings, without even being aware of it, and that's just so weird. If one thinks intuition is based on religiousity, then they have no clue about what they are talking about. However if one, also, thinks that it is based on the idea of "being based on", then they also don't understand it. It's a subtle shit.

Yes, that's how I also am thinking of the idea of the thing in itself, that it is existence itself, so we cannot know anything about the existence itself for it is "nothing". But we experience how that "nothing" manifests itself, and know it through the forms that it has become. Reality makes itself known to us by becoming form, but again, can it be forms all the way down? Can the "thing itself" be it being forms all the way down? Because, after all, what are objects referring to something other than other objects anyways? I mean reality might be like a structure referring to another structure referring to another structure, ad infinitum, for what would "that which is the ultimate" be another structure that is referring to another structure, if you know what I mean. I think, then, the thing in itself, perhaps, is there being no the thing in itself, but the never ending relations between the different levels, perhaps, of the thing in itself. This is a frickin mindfuck.

@Jannes